## Facts

- The steamship *Isis* sailed from Pacific Coast ports for Bremen, Hamburg, and Antwerp and was initially seaworthy.
- Near Bremen, the vessel stranded due to negligent navigation, damaging the rudder stock and rudder blade and causing a tendency to sheer to starboard.
- At Bremen, after discharging Bremen cargo, the vessel was inspected; the rudder stock was found twisted about 45 degrees.
- The rudder blade was examined in dry dock for a few hours and reported intact, but it was actually bent about five degrees; reasonable care would have revealed the bend.
- The owner was notified and sent its marine superintendent to Bremen; after consultation, the owner decided not to complete repairs at Bremen (which would have taken about two weeks) and instead to proceed about seventy miles to Hamburg with cargo aboard.
- The rudder was lashed amidships and the ship proceeded under tow by three tugs.
- About six miles downriver, during a course change to pass another vessel, the *Isis* sheered and grounded a second time.
- Cargo had to be lightered and transshipped, and the ship returned to Bremen for more extensive repairs.
- The shipowner declared general average and required cargo interests to deposit security for general average contributions as a condition of delivery, relying on a Jason clause in the bills of lading.
- The cargo owners’ assignee sued in admiralty to recover the deposits, arguing the owner lacked due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy.

## Issues

1. Whether the Harter Act § 3 duty of due diligence to make a vessel seaworthy applies at an intermediate stage when the owner intervenes after an accident and decides to continue the voyage.
2. Who bears the burden to prove due diligence when the shipowner relies on Harter Act § 3 and a Jason clause to claim general average despite negligent navigation.
3. Whether the shipowner proved due diligence to make the *Isis* seaworthy for the Bremen-to-Hamburg leg.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the shipowner.
- Due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy was required not only at the start of the voyage but again when the owner intervened at Bremen and directed the ship to proceed.
- The shipowner bore the burden of proving due diligence to obtain the Harter Act § 3 exemption and to enforce the Jason clause for general average contribution.
- The owner failed to prove due diligence because a reasonably careful inspection at Bremen would have discovered the rudder blade bend affecting safe navigation.
- Because the statutory and contractual condition of due diligence was not met, the shipowner could not claim general average contributions, and the cargo interests were entitled to recover the deposits.

## Legal Principles

- A shipowner seeking the Harter Act § 3 exemption for navigation or management faults must prove due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy, properly manned, equipped, and supplied.
- When an accident interrupts the voyage and the owner intervenes and assumes management to decide whether to proceed, the owner must exercise renewed due diligence to ensure seaworthiness for the resumed leg.
- A Jason clause permitting general average contribution despite negligent navigation is conditioned on the shipowner’s compliance with the same due-diligence requirement found in the Harter Act.
- Failure to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy leaves the shipowner liable for loss from faulty navigation and bars recovery of general average contributions demanded under a Jason clause.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the shipowner, having intervened after the first stranding, had a renewed obligation to exercise due diligence to ensure seaworthiness before continuing; because the owner failed to prove such diligence, it could not rely on Harter Act § 3 or the Jason clause to retain general average deposits.


May v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Aktiengesellschaft, 290 U.S. 333 (1933)